Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Analyze alexander the great
Alexander the great leadership skills
Success and failure of alexander ii
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Analyze alexander the great
Alexander III deserves the title “great”. Alexander III is the son of King Philip II of Macedonia. King Philip II sought to conquer. During Alexander’s boyhood, his father built the Macedonian army into a deadly fighting machine. The Macedonian Army used complex and clever tactics- those of which only brought them to conquer nearby Greek city-states. King Philip then planned to attack the vast Persian Empire, but soon was sadly assassinated. The former leader, King Philip II, left his kingdom to then be inherited by Alexander III. At the age of twenty, eager to lead, it was a tough task for Alexander. The Persian Empire was near impossible to conquer as it was the most powerful kingdom at the time. Nevertheless, Alexander pushed eastwards …show more content…
Alexander III did not give up right away. In the conquering of the vast Persian Empire, he persevered and pushed through the trials that tried to defeat him and the Macedonian army. In a hot desert, a trial that tried to defeat them was thirst. According to a biography written in Alexander’s time, it states, “The army was crossing a desert of sand; the sun was already blazing down upon them, but they were struggling on under the necessity of reaching water... Alexander, like everyone else, was tormented by thirst, but he was nonetheless marching on foot at the head of his men. It was all he could do to keep going, but he did so, and the result was that the men were the better able to endure their misery when they saw that it was equally shared” (document D). This adds also to the fact that he was caring. He could have just found water and drank it for himself, but he made a bold decision to suffer like the soldiers, which was somewhat comforting to the rest of the Macedonian army. Next, Alexander III persevered and used clever ways to carry out his plan. According to the writings of an ancient Greek philosopher, he states, “When Alexander saw this he decided to move his troops in all different directions so that Porus would keep puzzled . . . At night he would take most of his cavalry to various points along the river bank where he would create a clamor, raise the war cry and produce all other such …show more content…
Alexander III halted his journey to conquer because of him being sick, and his soldiers resistance. According to a biography written in Alexander’s time, it states, “Alexander, like everyone else, was tormented by thirst, but he was nonetheless marching on foot at the head of his men. It was all he could do to keep going, but he did so, and the result was that the men were the better able to endure their misery when they saw that it was equally shared” (document D). This shows a chain reaction. When Alexander survived under the same conditions that the rest of the Macedonian army did during the journey, that was somewhat comforting to them as they pushed through the struggles. Next, the text states, “ Seven thousand Tyrians died and the number would have been far higher... The great city was now utterly destroyed” (document C). This is also a chain reaction, because if Alexander did not encourage the Macedonian army, they would not have been able to conquer Tyre. The Macedonian army as a whole showed mercy to the cities that surrendered without a fight, so they can be ruthless and merciful. Nonetheless, the Macedonian army did not disappoint. All in all, Alexander III deserves the title “great” because of his
Alexander adopted Persian governing practices, but he had little use for Persian culture. According to his Greek biographer Plutarch, he considered himself "a governor from God and a reconciler of the world." He hoped that Greek culture would, through his actions, permeate all of Asia, inspiring its peoples to pursue virtue, excellence, and truth. This heroic idealism blended with practicality in his plan to develop the Tigris, Euphrates, and Indus rivers as commercial waterways linking all of Asia These undertakings promised to be long and difficult, however, and Alexander was an impatient man. His soldiers' unwillingness to proceed past the Indus was a great disappointment to him, for which he compensated by throwing his own festivals and celebrations. Alexander showed early leadership qualities. When King Phillip invaded Thrace, he left Alexander in charge of Macedonia at the age of 16. During his father's absence, one of the Thracian tribes, the Maedi, rebelled. Alexander was able to mobilize an army and put down the rebellion. In 336 B.C, Alexander's father was assassinated, putting Alexander on the throne at the age of 20. Shortly after this, Alexander left Macedonia with his armies to put down rebellions in the countries of Illyria, Thrace and Greece, all of which had previously been conquered by King Phillip. Alexander then moved his armies into Asia Minor and began to conquer the peoples there. Among the countries conquered by Alexander were Syria, Phoenicia and
Have you heard of a man named Alexander the Great, the famous historical figure? There are many amazing stories about him explaining the courageous things he had accomplished. However, if you learn more about him and his accomplishments you will soon realized the real person Alexander was. Alexander the Great, ruler of his empire was in fact not great as his title states. The definition of great is a person who shows concern for others, has leadership and shows intelligence. Alexander didn’t show any of these characteristics therefore he doesn’t deserve the title of “great”.
In the countries who believed Alexander was the son of the devil or the devil himself, will say he is not ‘great’ but a demon who did evil. The countries who were on his side would say he was the greatest conqueror to live. He began as a Macedonian cavalry commander at eighteen, king of Macedonia at twenty, conqueror of Persia at twenty-six and explorer of India at thirty [Foner and Garraty]. The amount of large scale accomplishments he managed to finish in a span of six years is astonishing. Alexander’s tomb was the largest tourist attraction in the ancient world. The tomb was even visited by Julius Caesar, Pompey, Caligula, and Augustus. Alexander the Great’s accomplishments set a bar in which provided a standard that all other leaders would match their careers too. Many leaders after Alexander could not reach the standard left by him [Foner and
In this legend, Alexander is leading his army through a desert. All if his men are already under equipped judging by how miserable they all were in the story. All of his men are agonizingly suffering from dehydration; meanwhile, a few loyal troops search for a source of water (Arrian). The soldiers finally find a miniscule source of water. They take what they can in a helmet and rather than drinking it, the devoted men bring it to their leader. Alexander takes this breathtaking gift in their miserable situation and poured it onto the ground. The men that took the initiative in finding the water in the first place could have drank it and regained some strength. Or if Alexander really did not want it, he could have just as easily given it to another higher ranked leaders. This story goes to prove that the great Alexander made people more miserable than they needed to be for no decent reason. In reality, no hero would this careless and lavish in a situation like this; therefore, this is yet another representation of how Alexander is not a hero.
Alexander the Great is great because of his remarkable achievement which helped to create a long lasting legacy. Alexander started to build his empire in 334 BCE after taking the new role as the king. It only took eleven years to build an empire that was large and lasted several years. In addition, the empire Alexander created stretched over 2,200,000 square miles becoming bigger than the United States (Alexander’s Empire Doc. A) (Alexander’s Legacy Doc, E). This proves that Alexander the Great is great because although the process was eleven long years to make a strong empire, Alexander wasn’t willing to give up and
Alexander the Great is hailed, by most historians, as “The Great Conqueror” of the world in the days of ancient Mesopotamia. “Alexander III of Macedon, better known as Alexander the Great, single-handedly changed the nature of the ancient world in little more than a decade. Alexander was born in Pella, the ancient capital of Macedonia in July 356 BCE. His parents were Philip II of Macedon and his wife Olympias. Philip was assassinated in 336 BCE and Alexander inherited a powerful yet volatile kingdom. He quickly dealt with his enemies at home and reasserted Macedonian power within Greece. He then set out to conquer the massive Persian Empire” (Web, BBC History). It is important to note, which will maybe explain his brutal actions, that Alexander was only twenty years old when he became the king of Macedonia. “When he was 13, Philip hired the Greek philosopher Aristotle to be Alexander’s personal tutor. During the next three years Aristotle gave Alexander training in rhetoric and literature and stimulated his interest in science, medicine, and philosophy, all of which became of importance in Alexander’s later life” (Web, Project of History of Macedonia). “In, 340, when Philip assembled a large Macedonian army and invaded Thrace, he left his 16 years old son with the power to rule Macedonia in his absence as regent, but as the Macedonian army advanced deep into Thrace, the Thracian tribe of Maedi bordering north-eastern Macedonia rebelled and posed a danger to the country. Alexander assembled an army, led it against the rebels, and with swift action defeated the Maedi, captured their stronghold, and renamed it after himself to Alexandropolis. Two years later in 338 BC, Philip gave his son a commanding post among the senior gener...
After the assassination of his father, Philip of Macedon, Alexander took off on a journey that lasted the rest of his life. Taking his inherited army of about 32,000 he set out to conquer all of Persia. Starting with the Battle of River Granicus, he went south along the coast of Asia Minor to Halicarnassus after a year he met King Darius for the first time at Issus where he took his opposer's mother, wife and daughter. Leaving Issus Alexander followed the Mediterranean coastline taking the Island of Tyre on his way into Egypt freeing both those at Jerusalem and in Egypt itself from the religious oppression of the Persian rule. Alexander the Great planed
Few historical figures stand out in the same degree as that of Alexander the Great. He was a warrior by 16, a commander at age 18, and was crowned King of Macedon by the time he was 20 years old. He did things in his lifetime that others could only dream about. Alexander single-handedly changed the nature of the ancient world in just over a decade. There were many attributes that made Alexander “Great.” He was a brilliant strategist and an inspired leader; he led by example and was a conqueror at heart. In looking at his early childhood, accession to the throne, conquests, marriage, and death one can see why Alexander the Great is revered in historical contexts as one of the greatest figures of all time.
Alexander the Great was only 20 years when his father Philip of Macedon died. Even though he was a young man, he had an unusual talent for politics and military tactics. After his father’s death, Alexander moved to continue Philip’s invasion of Persia. In the ten years of his war campaigns, Alexander conquered a large portion of the then-known world. (Judge & Langdon, 2012.)
Alexander the Great has been considered for centuries as a military genius and influenced conquerors such as Hannibal the Carthaginian, the Romans Pompey, Caesar and Napoleon. Although, he inherited a strong kingdom and an experienced army, Alexander was capable to display his leadership and military capabilities. In 338 B.C., his father, King Phillip II, gave Alexander a commanding post among the senior generals as the Ma...
Alexander was brought up admiring Homeric heroes, and was inspired by their emotional impulses. Alexander wanted to be seen as braver than brave, the mostly kingly of kings, and the greatest of all generals. Alexander wanted to identify with mythical and divine conquerors, such as Dionysus. Anaxarchus, a Greek philosopher whom accompanied Alexander at the school of Democritus, said that Alexander had better claims to be a god than Dionysus and Heracles, due to Alexander’s grand accomplishments. Alexander was inspired by Homer’s hero Achilles, and his aspiration for greatness – he even saw himself as a reincarnation of this Homeric hero. Alexander’s desire to explore west Egypt hailed from his mystical belief in his destiny, whereas others argue that it was an attempt to strengthen his position with his new subjects. Callisthenes – the official historian – said that it was due to Alexander’s “thirst for glory because he heard Hercules and Peruses had gone there before him” and he wanted to emulate these Homeric heroes. He was motivated by Homeric ideals such as personal achievement and glory, accomplished largely in warfare. Alexander’s siege of Aornus was carried out because Hercules had failed a similar attempt, and Arrian wrote that Alexander crossed the Gedrosian Desert because “no one else with an army had done so successfully” (Anab.
The first matter to consider is what constitutes “greatness”. There are no set standards no checklist, to apply to a person, to determine it they are “great.” The simplest way that I could conceive to decide whether this title should apply to Alexander was to determine if he was, in some way, superior to the rulers that came before or after his reign. The most obvious place for me to start my consideration is with Alexander’s vast accomplishments as a conquerer.
Having heard of Alexander’s ruthlessness, most of the area’s kings and leaders gave in to him without a fight, but a few tribes still resisted him. In battles over the next two years, Alexander conquered these tribes, finally defeating his last remaining opponent in the area, King Porus of Paurava, on the battlefield in late 326 BC. Alexander intended to cross the Ganges River to conquer India, but his troops, exhausted from near-constant fighting, refused to continue, threatening mutiny. Alexander tried to persuade them to press on, but eventually relented. He sent half of his army home and marched the other half along the route he had originally planned.
There are many leaders in the world, but a great ruler is passionate, honorable and one who can inspire even in the most hopeless circumstances. Alexander the Great was a great ruler. Alexander the Great was a ruler that was not only inspiring, but he was fearless, smart, bold and courageous. Alexander the Great inspired his soldiers to crave more. He has inspired people since the day he started ruling. What is inspirational about Alexander the Great is that he inspired his troops to the point that they did not question him when they were outnumbered three to one in a battle, they trusted him with their lives and were willing to die for him (Alexander the Great: man behind the legend).
For Alexander the Great, his downfall was his death, June 10, 323 BC. Alexander suffered mania, paranoia and could have been clinically insane. The cause of his death is still unknown, but it was said that he was partying and drank all day and night. He developed a fever, and then after he drank a glass of wine, he was dead. It was set that his cause was alcohol poisoning with the account of malaria. Alexander did not just follow up with what his dad left him, he defeated the enemies, and took control of many other cities, and while doing so, he was the most successful leader. Alexander had the reputation that not many rulers had, and he gained this reputation by being a kind leader and his strategies and tactics to fight were unique. “The age of Alexander had the good fortune to produce both many artistic achievements and many men of great talent,” (Behnke) was stated by Plutarch to sum up the reign of